Search   Memberlist   Usergroups
 Page 1 of 1 [10 Posts]
Author Message
Euler Cheung
science forum beginner

Joined: 15 Jul 2006
Posts: 12

Posted: Sun Jul 16, 2006 2:44 am    Post subject: My thought on F=ma

On 4/18/05, euler cheung <eulercheung@gmail.com> wrote:
Hello friends,
 Quote: I was out for a meeting yesterday so I hardly had any time to write. This is a more detail exploration of the thoughts I raise yesterday. 1. Why net acting Force does NOT equal to Acceleration times Mass? There are two routes to arrive into this conclusion. One from a microscopic perspective, another from the analog I raise the day before yesterday. From the microscopic's perspective, we need to explore the exact happening when an external contact force is acting on an object from a molecular or atomic level. When an external contact force is exerting on an object, it must be the atoms/molecular in direct contact of the force exerter experience that force first. What really is a force? Think about when you try to move something, your hand move a location to another location, so it really is a tendency of displacement. The microscopic structure of your hand are moving from one location to another location as a whole.(Assuming the totality of your hand is still there after you move!) So when anyone/anything is exerting a force, it is a mass that moving to a location where it has already occupied by the mass we would like to move. In the process of exerting a force, the object moved and the mover would first come into a close contact. Probably close enough for the repulsive force of the electrons from the mover and the moved to overcome any molecular/atomic attraction between them. Thus pressure is exerted by the means of electrical repulsion. Notice that if the mover is not in contact of the whole surface of the moved object, then the picture need a small modification as NOT the totality of first layer of atom/molecule is affected, ONLY those in direct contact with the mover. As the other atoms/molecules not affecting by this force try to holding the affected into their original location. We have surface tension in action. This surface would attempt to resort to its original location, thus exerting a reaction force to the mover. On the other hand, the area affected is displace to further inward of that object due to the electrical repulsion force, thus drawing the ire of yet another electrical repulsion force from the layer of atom deeper inside the object. The first layer of atom/molecule now react to this force, and the deeper layer both react and being push inward by the electrical repulsion force from the first layer. This process repeat itself until every layer of the moved is affected, which is how a force transferring from the surface of the moved to its totality of atom. It would require time and ENERGY to overcome the attraction of the atom/molecular not directly affected by this force, thus some kinetic ENERGY of the mover is DISSIPATED in the process as heat. A bare minimum level of kinetic energy is require to cause minimum level of displacement. Thus, NOT the TOTALITY of that external force is being transferred as kinetic energy of each atom/molecular of the moved. So F does NOT equal to ma. Moreover, we rely on the intricate interaction of attraction and repulsion of the atom/molecule, or the ELECTROMAGNETIC properties of the moved object for the reaction to take place. Why would we be confident that E-M world would provide us something like F=ma when it is so dissimilar from the world of force? (The case for action at a distance is pretty similar to this picture since a field require time to reach each layer of the moved object. The first layer is always reacting first to such a force, and the second layer a little bit later, so on and on. The real disparity from contacting force is that all layer is experiencing force of various strength at the same time. Nevertheless, energy is dissipate in the process as heat and the force also rely on the electromagnetic field inside the object to conduct.) From the perspective of that Force is merely another expression of E-M field. Remember the phenomena of inductance? It would take some minimal level of electrical energy to 'initialize' a conducting object into a state of conductor of certain level of current; similarly, we would expect a minimal level of kinetic energy is required to change an object from the state of movement at constant speed to the state of movement with either constant increasing/decreasing speed. That minimal level of energy is coming from the mover itself. Thus NOT all of the totality of kinetic energy of the mover is transferred to the moved object. In other words: F does NOT equal to mass times acceleration. BTW, the only difference between solid and liquid is how attracted are the atom/molecules to each other. What phenomena we see in one state should also expect another manifestation in another state. Therefore, surface tension is existing in three different states with different parameter, and so do others.
N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc)
science forum Guru

Joined: 25 Mar 2005
Posts: 2835

Posted: Sun Jul 16, 2006 3:18 am    Post subject: Re: My thought on F=ma

Dear Euler's New Dice:

"Euler's New Dice" <eulercheung@gmail.com> wrote in message
 Quote: On 4/18/05, euler cheung wrote: .... So when anyone/anything is exerting a force, it is a mass that moving to a location where it has already occupied by the mass we would like to move.

Explain the motion of a radiometer. No "initiating mass" is
required. Likewise an electric motor, where induced electric
potential (aka. "magnetic force") makes the motor's rotor
accelerate.

....
 Quote: atom. It would require time and ENERGY to overcome the attraction of the atom/molecular not directly affected by this force, thus some kinetic ENERGY of the mover is DISSIPATED in the process as heat.

Bull.

 Quote: A bare minimum level of kinetic energy is require to cause minimum level of displacement. Thus, NOT the TOTALITY of that external force is being transferred as kinetic energy of each atom/molecular of the moved. So F does NOT equal to ma.

This doesn't follow. Energy =/= force.

You sure ramble on a lot.

David A. Smith
Euler Cheung
science forum beginner

Joined: 15 Jul 2006
Posts: 12

Posted: Sun Jul 16, 2006 4:34 am    Post subject: Re: My thought on F=ma

N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc) wrote:
 Quote: Dear Euler's New Dice: "Euler's New Dice" wrote in message news:1153017875.130210.21080@35g2000cwc.googlegroups.com... On 4/18/05, euler cheung wrote: ... So when anyone/anything is exerting a force, it is a mass that moving to a location where it has already occupied by the mass we would like to move. Explain the motion of a radiometer. No "initiating mass" is required. Likewise an electric motor, where induced electric potential (aka. "magnetic force") makes the motor's rotor accelerate.

This also puzzle me too. Especially Lorentz's force. My only
explanation that can come up with is: Ether. The force is exert in the
ether, and reaction force acting to accelerate a motor. However, this
explanation doesn't explain why this only happen in electromagnetic
force but not gravity.

Second puzzle is: Why Lorentz's force take place in a magnet doesn't
encounter back emf but a motor can't run too fast because of back emf?
i.e. Pass a electrical current directly on the surface of a Magnet, the
Magnet would spin faster and faster. However, doing so with a
conductive wire in Motor would result in Back EMF, or drag force.
Therefore the Motor can't be accerlerate indefinitely. What make the
difference?
N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc)
science forum Guru

Joined: 25 Mar 2005
Posts: 2835

Posted: Sun Jul 16, 2006 4:09 pm    Post subject: Re: My thought on F=ma

Dear Euler's New Dice:

"Euler's New Dice" <eulercheung@gmail.com> wrote in message
 Quote: N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc) wrote: Dear Euler's New Dice: "Euler's New Dice" wrote in message news:1153017875.130210.21080@35g2000cwc.googlegroups.com... On 4/18/05, euler cheung wrote: ... So when anyone/anything is exerting a force, it is a mass that moving to a location where it has already occupied by the mass we would like to move. Explain the motion of a radiometer. No "initiating mass" is required. Likewise an electric motor, where induced electric potential (aka. "magnetic force") makes the motor's rotor accelerate. This also puzzle me too. Especially Lorentz's force. My only explanation that can come up with is: Ether.

Whatever floats your boat. But the contact forces that your
gedanken started with are also based on *charges*.

 Quote: The force is exert in the ether, and reaction force acting to accelerate a motor. However, this explanation doesn't explain why this only happen in electromagnetic force but not gravity.

If gravity is not a force... there is then nothing to explain.

 Quote: Second puzzle is: Why Lorentz's force take place in a magnet doesn't encounter back emf but a motor can't run too fast because of back emf?

There is one rotating frame where the drag on the motor's rotor,
matches the driving emf's phase. That is where the motor runs.
If the load is trying to spin faster, it ends up "powering the
mains". The "back emf" comes from the power grid.

David A. Smith
Euler Cheung
science forum beginner

Joined: 15 Jul 2006
Posts: 12

Posted: Sun Jul 16, 2006 4:57 pm    Post subject: Re: My thought on F=ma

N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc) wrote:
 Quote: Dear Euler's New Dice: "Euler's New Dice" wrote in message news:1153024461.346517.285620@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com... N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc) wrote: Dear Euler's New Dice: "Euler's New Dice" wrote in message news:1153017875.130210.21080@35g2000cwc.googlegroups.com... On 4/18/05, euler cheung wrote: ... So when anyone/anything is exerting a force, it is a mass that moving to a location where it has already occupied by the mass we would like to move. Explain the motion of a radiometer. No "initiating mass" is required. Likewise an electric motor, where induced electric potential (aka. "magnetic force") makes the motor's rotor accelerate. This also puzzle me too. Especially Lorentz's force. My only explanation that can come up with is: Ether. Whatever floats your boat. But the contact forces that your gedanken started with are also based on *charges*. The force is exert in the ether, and reaction force acting to accelerate a motor. However, this explanation doesn't explain why this only happen in electromagnetic force but not gravity. If gravity is not a force... there is then nothing to explain.

I am not saying gravity is not a force, I am thinking about the
theoritical consistency if I hypothesis that ether is responsible for
presence of this Force. If ether is offered as an explanation, then why
doesn't gravity also interact with ether?
 Quote: Second puzzle is: Why Lorentz's force take place in a magnet doesn't encounter back emf but a motor can't run too fast because of back emf? There is one rotating frame where the drag on the motor's rotor, matches the driving emf's phase. That is where the motor runs. If the load is trying to spin faster, it ends up "powering the mains". The "back emf" comes from the power grid. David A. Smith

I can see what happen if the load is trying to spin faster than the
motor. My question: Presumably a motor can't spin too fast because the
coil would interact with the Magnets inside in accordance to Lenz's Law
as if it is inside a Generator. i.e. When the coil is rotate away from
a Magnetic pole, it would create an attractive force by attempting to
form an attractive pole; When the coil is rotate toward a Magnetic
pole, it would create an repulsive force by attempting to form an
repelling pole. But when we simply pass a electrical current through
the rim of a Magnet, the Magnet spin faster and faster and faster. Both
are without loading, but why later appear to have no upper limit of
rotational velocity? Even if we are not using a coil, we use straight
conductor wire, we nevertheless encounter the same speed limit issue
impose by back EMF generated to counteract the rotation. The only
difference seems to me is a conductor wire contain the electrical
current, but a naked Magnet does not.
N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc)
science forum Guru

Joined: 25 Mar 2005
Posts: 2835

Posted: Sun Jul 16, 2006 6:46 pm    Post subject: Re: My thought on F=ma

Dear Euler's New Dice:

"Euler's New Dice" <eulercheung@gmail.com> wrote in message
 Quote: N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc) wrote: Dear Euler's New Dice: "Euler's New Dice" wrote in message news:1153024461.346517.285620@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com... .... The force is exert in the ether, and reaction force acting to accelerate a motor. However, this explanation doesn't explain why this only happen in electromagnetic force but not gravity. If gravity is not a force... there is then nothing to explain. I am not saying gravity is not a force,

OK. But gravity is consistent with *not* being a force.

 Quote: I am thinking about the theoritical consistency if I hypothesis that ether is responsible for presence of this Force. If ether is offered as an explanation, then why doesn't gravity also interact with ether?

Aether isn't affected by light, yet propagates light. Why should
it propagate gravity, yet be affected by gravity?

 Quote: Second puzzle is: Why Lorentz's force take place in a magnet doesn't encounter back emf but a motor can't run too fast because of back emf? There is one rotating frame where the drag on the motor's rotor, matches the driving emf's phase. That is where the motor runs. If the load is trying to spin faster, it ends up "powering the mains". The "back emf" comes from the power grid. I can see what happen if the load is trying to spin faster than the motor. My question: Presumably a motor can't spin too fast because the coil would interact with the Magnets inside in accordance to Lenz's Law as if it is inside a Generator.

Notice that a DC motor can go "infinitely fast", just keep apply
more voltage. Up until the insulation breaks down, or the rotor
explodes...

David A. Smith
Euler Cheung
science forum beginner

Joined: 15 Jul 2006
Posts: 12

Posted: Mon Jul 17, 2006 7:15 am    Post subject: Re: My thought on F=ma

Hello,

N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc) wrote:
 Quote: Dear Euler's New Dice: "Euler's New Dice" wrote in message news:1153069047.166321.29320@s13g2000cwa.googlegroups.com... N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc) wrote: Dear Euler's New Dice: "Euler's New Dice" wrote in message news:1153024461.346517.285620@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com... ... The force is exert in the ether, and reaction force acting to accelerate a motor. However, this explanation doesn't explain why this only happen in electromagnetic force but not gravity. If gravity is not a force... there is then nothing to explain. I am not saying gravity is not a force, OK. But gravity is consistent with *not* being a force.

If gravity is not a force, what is gravity then?

 Quote: I am thinking about the theoritical consistency if I hypothesis that ether is responsible for presence of this Force. If ether is offered as an explanation, then why doesn't gravity also interact with ether? Aether isn't affected by light, yet propagates light. Why should it propagate gravity, yet be affected by gravity? Just a curious thought: Can't it propagate gravity because it is

affected by gravity? Much like water as a meidum of sound wave.

 Quote: Second puzzle is: Why Lorentz's force take place in a magnet doesn't encounter back emf but a motor can't run too fast because of back emf? There is one rotating frame where the drag on the motor's rotor, matches the driving emf's phase. That is where the motor runs. If the load is trying to spin faster, it ends up "powering the mains". The "back emf" comes from the power grid. I can see what happen if the load is trying to spin faster than the motor. My question: Presumably a motor can't spin too fast because the coil would interact with the Magnets inside in accordance to Lenz's Law as if it is inside a Generator. Notice that a DC motor can go "infinitely fast", just keep apply more voltage. Up until the insulation breaks down, or the rotor explodes... David A. Smith

I beg to differ here. Because it is the mechanic working with our
inventions make such a comment. Usually those motor has a high torque
spin slower, and those motor has a lower torque spin faster. Being fast
or slow, there is still a limit.
Why does we need more voltage to keep spinning faster in a motor? Does
it a constant applied force on the rim of a motor would constantly
accelerate the object in rotational motion? F=B*I, B doesn't change, so
I shouldn't. I just wonder if we are talking about the same thing in
different language.
N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc)
science forum Guru

Joined: 25 Mar 2005
Posts: 2835

Posted: Mon Jul 17, 2006 1:21 pm    Post subject: Re: My thought on F=ma

Dear Euler's New Dice:

"Euler's New Dice" <eulercheung@gmail.com> wrote in message
 Quote: Hello, N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc) wrote: Dear Euler's New Dice: "Euler's New Dice" wrote in message news:1153069047.166321.29320@s13g2000cwa.googlegroups.com... N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc) wrote: Dear Euler's New Dice: "Euler's New Dice" wrote in message news:1153024461.346517.285620@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com... ... The force is exert in the ether, and reaction force acting to accelerate a motor. However, this explanation doesn't explain why this only happen in electromagnetic force but not gravity. If gravity is not a force... there is then nothing to explain. I am not saying gravity is not a force, OK. But gravity is consistent with *not* being a force. If gravity is not a force, what is gravity then?

It is consistent with objects simply following the straightest
possible path through curved spacetime. If you are fond of
aether, you may want to check out Ilja's work:
http://www.ilja-schmelzer.de/

 Quote: I am thinking about the theoritical consistency if I hypothesis that ether is responsible for presence of this Force. If ether is offered as an explanation, then why doesn't gravity also interact with ether? Aether isn't affected by light, yet propagates light. Why should it propagate gravity, yet be affected by gravity? Just a curious thought: Can't it propagate gravity because it is affected by gravity? Much like water as a meidum of sound wave.

You have to define "affected by" very carefully. If aether is
"sucked in" then all objects are gravitationally and EM-wise
completely isolated. Aether itself likely has no mass, but
neither do photons. Yet photons are at least "diverted" by
gravity.

 Quote: Second puzzle is: Why Lorentz's force take place in a magnet doesn't encounter back emf but a motor can't run too fast because of back emf? There is one rotating frame where the drag on the motor's rotor, matches the driving emf's phase. That is where the motor runs. If the load is trying to spin faster, it ends up "powering the mains". The "back emf" comes from the power grid. I can see what happen if the load is trying to spin faster than the motor. My question: Presumably a motor can't spin too fast because the coil would interact with the Magnets inside in accordance to Lenz's Law as if it is inside a Generator. Notice that a DC motor can go "infinitely fast", just keep apply more voltage. Up until the insulation breaks down, or the rotor explodes... I beg to differ here. Because it is the mechanic working with our inventions make such a comment.

And?

 Quote: Usually those motor has a high torque spin slower, and those motor has a lower torque spin faster. Being fast or slow, there is still a limit.

The limit comes from the insulation, and the vibrational
stability of the rotor. *Not* the electronics/magnetics. Your
faster/slower analogy is overcome in some ideal world by
increasing the applied voltage.

 Quote: Why does we need more voltage to keep spinning faster in a motor?

Rotational energy is still kinetic energy, which comes from the
power supply. Losses in magnetising the various windings/cores,
prior to actually attracting the rotor. Friction losses.

 Quote: Does it a constant applied force on the rim of a motor would constantly accelerate the object in rotational motion? F=B*I, B doesn't change, so I shouldn't. I just wonder if we are talking about the same thing in different language.

Maybe.

David A. Smith
Euler Cheung
science forum beginner

Joined: 15 Jul 2006
Posts: 12

Posted: Tue Jul 18, 2006 8:58 am    Post subject: Re: My thought on F=ma

N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc) wrote:
 Quote: Dear Euler's New Dice: "Euler's New Dice" wrote in message news:1153120504.457023.235100@75g2000cwc.googlegroups.com... Hello, N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc) wrote: Dear Euler's New Dice: "Euler's New Dice" wrote in message news:1153069047.166321.29320@s13g2000cwa.googlegroups.com... N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc) wrote: Dear Euler's New Dice: "Euler's New Dice" wrote in message news:1153024461.346517.285620@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com... ... The force is exert in the ether, and reaction force acting to accelerate a motor. However, this explanation doesn't explain why this only happen in electromagnetic force but not gravity. If gravity is not a force... there is then nothing to explain. I am not saying gravity is not a force, OK. But gravity is consistent with *not* being a force. If gravity is not a force, what is gravity then? It is consistent with objects simply following the straightest possible path through curved spacetime. If you are fond of aether, you may want to check out Ilja's work: http://www.ilja-schmelzer.de/

I don't have a definite position on existence of ether. I am open to
either possibility. On the other end, could we conjecture all force as
a result of space-time curvature. i.e. Force simply doesn't exist. We
are bending space-time with power(force as energy) all the time?
Why can't we say electromagnetic force is not a force, but a curvature
for space-time for electromagnetic object?

 Quote: I am thinking about the theoritical consistency if I hypothesis that ether is responsible for presence of this Force. If ether is offered as an explanation, then why doesn't gravity also interact with ether? Aether isn't affected by light, yet propagates light. Why should it propagate gravity, yet be affected by gravity? Just a curious thought: Can't it propagate gravity because it is affected by gravity? Much like water as a meidum of sound wave. You have to define "affected by" very carefully. If aether is "sucked in" then all objects are gravitationally and EM-wise completely isolated. Aether itself likely has no mass, but neither do photons. Yet photons are at least "diverted" by gravity. Second puzzle is: Why Lorentz's force take place in a magnet doesn't encounter back emf but a motor can't run too fast because of back emf? There is one rotating frame where the drag on the motor's rotor, matches the driving emf's phase. That is where the motor runs. If the load is trying to spin faster, it ends up "powering the mains". The "back emf" comes from the power grid. I can see what happen if the load is trying to spin faster than the motor. My question: Presumably a motor can't spin too fast because the coil would interact with the Magnets inside in accordance to Lenz's Law as if it is inside a Generator. Notice that a DC motor can go "infinitely fast", just keep apply more voltage. Up until the insulation breaks down, or the rotor explodes... I beg to differ here. Because it is the mechanic working with our inventions make such a comment. And?

Clever, the mechanic ask us to invent a motor that is free of this
'issue'. We are working on that.

 Quote: Usually those motor has a high torque spin slower, and those motor has a lower torque spin faster. Being fast or slow, there is still a limit. The limit comes from the insulation, and the vibrational stability of the rotor. *Not* the electronics/magnetics. Your faster/slower analogy is overcome in some ideal world by increasing the applied voltage.

Good, we don't need to invent on demand!

 Quote: Why does we need more voltage to keep spinning faster in a motor? Rotational energy is still kinetic energy, which comes from the power supply. Losses in magnetising the various windings/cores, prior to actually attracting the rotor. Friction losses.

The big energy picture is not that simple, you had to remember that the
tendency to maintain the rotational motion doesn't residue in the
rotating object itself. The rotating Inertia has something to do with
the mass in universe. When it is rotating in the vertical plane,
gravity is involved in the energy exchange. I would refrain from start
with conservation of energy without a serious consideration of every
detail of energy exchange involved.

 Quote: Does it a constant applied force on the rim of a motor would constantly accelerate the object in rotational motion? F=B*I, B doesn't change, so I shouldn't. I just wonder if we are talking about the same thing in different language. Maybe. David A. Smith
N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc)
science forum Guru

Joined: 25 Mar 2005
Posts: 2835

Posted: Tue Jul 18, 2006 1:19 pm    Post subject: Re: My thought on F=ma

Dear Euler's New Dice:

"Euler's New Dice" <eulercheung@gmail.com> wrote in message
 Quote: N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc) wrote: Dear Euler's New Dice: "Euler's New Dice" wrote in message news:1153120504.457023.235100@75g2000cwc.googlegroups.com... Hello, N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc) wrote: Dear Euler's New Dice: "Euler's New Dice" wrote in message news:1153069047.166321.29320@s13g2000cwa.googlegroups.com... N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc) wrote: Dear Euler's New Dice: "Euler's New Dice" wrote in message news:1153024461.346517.285620@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com... ... If gravity is not a force, what is gravity then? It is consistent with objects simply following the straightest possible path through curved spacetime. If you are fond of aether, you may want to check out Ilja's work: http://www.ilja-schmelzer.de/ I don't have a definite position on existence of ether. I am open to either possibility.

Good. The Lorentz aether can neither be proved nor disproved in
this Universe.

 Quote: On the other end, could we conjecture all force as a result of space-time curvature. i.e. Force simply doesn't exist. We are bending space-time with power(force as energy) all the time? Why can't we say electromagnetic force is not a force, but a curvature for space-time for electromagnetic object?

OK. Magnetism requires two components to work. Charge and
motion. The motion part reveals "length contraction / time
dilation". But that is the extent to which curvature of a *4D*
manifold can take us. This leaves charge, which can supply a
force even when it is not moving, which radiates photons when it
is accelerating. Higher dimensionality might yield charge... I
don't know. But how we only get unitary charge... that makes me
think that dimensionality is not the answer to charge.

....
 Quote: I beg to differ here. Because it is the mechanic working with our inventions make such a comment. And? Clever, the mechanic ask us to invent a motor that is free of this 'issue'. We are working on that.

Ask him to make an omelette without breaking eggs. Each new
feature has a price.

 Quote: Usually those motor has a high torque spin slower, and those motor has a lower torque spin faster. Being fast or slow, there is still a limit. The limit comes from the insulation, and the vibrational stability of the rotor. *Not* the electronics/magnetics. Your faster/slower analogy is overcome in some ideal world by increasing the applied voltage. Good, we don't need to invent on demand!

No, you need a specification that is not a moving target.

 Quote: Why does we need more voltage to keep spinning faster in a motor? Rotational energy is still kinetic energy, which comes from the power supply. Losses in magnetising the various windings/cores, prior to actually attracting the rotor. Friction losses. The big energy picture is not that simple, you had to remember that the tendency to maintain the rotational motion doesn't residue in the rotating object itself. The rotating Inertia has something to do with the mass in universe.

Ernst Mach.

 Quote: When it is rotating in the vertical plane, gravity is involved in the energy exchange. I would refrain from start with conservation of energy without a serious consideration of every detail of energy exchange involved.

The only thing gravity will do is change the "static" loading on
the bearings. You don't need to make this harder than it has to
be.

David A. Smith

 Display posts from previous: All Posts1 Day7 Days2 Weeks1 Month3 Months6 Months1 Year Oldest FirstNewest First
 Page 1 of 1 [10 Posts]
 The time now is Thu Nov 15, 2018 7:52 pm | All times are GMT
 Jump to: Select a forum-------------------Forum index|___Science and Technology    |___Math    |   |___Research    |   |___num-analysis    |   |___Symbolic    |   |___Combinatorics    |   |___Probability    |   |   |___Prediction    |   |       |   |___Undergraduate    |   |___Recreational    |       |___Physics    |   |___Research    |   |___New Theories    |   |___Acoustics    |   |___Electromagnetics    |   |___Strings    |   |___Particle    |   |___Fusion    |   |___Relativity    |       |___Chem    |   |___Analytical    |   |___Electrochem    |   |   |___Battery    |   |       |   |___Coatings    |       |___Engineering        |___Control        |___Mechanics        |___Chemical

 Topic Author Forum Replies Last Post Similar Topics Prine Number thought experiment robert.w.adams@verizon.ne Math 1 Fri Jul 14, 2006 3:31 am A Tale of Two Clocks: A Thought Experiment Titus Piezas III Relativity 7 Wed Jul 05, 2006 8:48 am beginner thought experiments Ning Hu Relativity 46 Thu Jun 29, 2006 5:57 am Pop my thought balloon Edward Green Electromagnetics 10 Thu Jun 22, 2006 12:18 am Weekend thought provoker - nonclean overlapping recursion Csaba Gabor Undergraduate 4 Fri Apr 14, 2006 3:43 am